Northstar1989

Finally got one to work! But that was the only screenshot I captured of it... I only got 25 Science points from that, though, so I'll be re-attempting this with a larger array of sensors. It appears the problem might have been that the impactor was hitting the ground too far from the sensor. My guess is there's some kind of system incorporating both distance, # of sensor locations, and impact velocity; to determine whether an impact is detected... More on this soon. Regards, Northstar

Finally got one to work! But I didn't do anything different this time, except hit the ground a little closer to the sensor... (the 110 m/s impact from the first post was at an only moderately greater distance from the sensor) Is the impactor code supposed to be working like this? Or is this just a result of a glitch? - Northstar

Tried it again, and this time managed to impact the ground at over 480 m/s, by using the final-stage SRB as intended (to shove back down through the lower atmosphere at high speeds). I was also lucky enough to hit the side of a mountain this time (less time experiencing drag). But, still no impact data! What's the issue here- is the velocity still not sufficient, or is it more of a coding issue? Regards, Northstar

@FractalUK My impactor experiments don't seem to be working on Kerbin. They worked fine on the Mun (in fact, all I needed was to collide a detached thermometer into the Mun at the game-equivalent of mach 1.8 to get an impact to register there...), but I can't get them to work on Kerbin. This experiment in impact detection on Kerbin yielded absolutely no detected impacts for the detectors on the rover. And since I did exactly the same thing on the Mun (different impactor and rover, but same approach), I know I'm doing it correctly... The pic's with the explosion are actually from the SRB's on the impactor (I wanted to see if they would register as well), but the impactor itself hit the ground at a little over 100 m/s here (hard to get it to hit much faster, given the effects of drag). Regards, Northstar

OK, so tests indicate that either impactor experiments don't work on Kerbin, or there's something I'm doing wrong... I didn't get *any* evidence that the impactor monitor even recorded the impacts, and no science to collect, when I attempted an impactor experiment on Kerbin: Of course, I F5/F9'd that. I'll consider it a 'simulation'. I'll have to figure out what went wrong with several more 'simulations'... Regards, Northstar

So, as I was plotting trajectories for the Light Munar Explorer, a couple thoughts struck me... First, that KSP-Interstellar's impactor experiment system should have excellent synergy with the NASA Mission Pack that Squad has announced they will be releasing shortly after 0.24 (they are working directly with real-world NASA to design it- based on a NASA plan to capture a Near-Earth Object in Earth orbit and land a manned mission on it...) You see, the mission pack will create randomized spawns of Near-Kerbin asteroids, some of which should land on s trajectory carrying them through Kerbin's SOI. A significant fractions of those should end up being intercepted by the Mun's SOI and crashing into it- leading to free impactor events for any sensors stationed there if the mod counts these as valid impacts... Second, that I haven't launched any Kerbin-impactors yet. I should get on that- it shouldn't be too hard to set up a seismic sensor at the KSC, and then launch a small probe straight up from the mountaintop launchpad I built on a suborbital trajectory, turn it around at apoapsis and have it burn straight back towards Kerbin on the way back down with any remaining fuel for a relatively high-velocity impact event (drag will still slow it down quite a bit, unfortunately...) I should also be able to use the spent fuel tanks from the Light Munar Explorer, and any other similar missions in the future, as impactors as long as they collide into Kerbin's surface with enough force... I'll just have to remember to separate them and activate the parachutes relatively low to the ground so the fuel tank doesn't become unloaded before impact... Anyways, I set the LME on a high-speed collision-course with Minmus (it's got plenty of extra fuel). Once it's almost to Minmus' SOI, it will turn around and perform a high Delta-V deceleration burn that will also set it on a trajectory where it performs a Minmus flyby before shooting out to an even more distant apoapsis- where I can then perform a very low Delta-V burn to set the LME's periapsis inside Kerbin's atmosphere: The high-speed transfer should help to keep the total mission time reasonable. I might also use up additional fuel to speed up the return trajectory by burning radially inward... (I have more than enough fuel to slow it down again close to Kerbin, if I so desire) Regards, Northstar

This is a long post, but bear with me: OK, so first of all, I rendezvoused the lander with the service module, and EVA'd the Kerbals over, as well as the scientific data, the two functional solar panels (the ones the Kerbals were standing on broke), and the lander's thermometer (more on that later). KAS allows me to move light parts between ships via EVA, and I put that ability to good use... However because my orbit was so low, maneuvers to rendezvous with the service module put both ships on a suborbital trajectory (I made small burns from both ships during the rendezvous, as Bill Kerman was running a little low on EVA propellant, so I brought the service module to him...) So, I decided to use the lander as an impactor probe, rather than try and desperately circularize its orbit (without functional solar panels, it would have just been a dangerous piece of high-velocity debris in low orbit: too small to be worth salvaging and too low to do so safely...) I had just enough time to circularize the service module, however, due to a smaller burn I performed earlier to slow its rate of descent... Now some of you may be wondering why I only performed a short burn to give the service module more time, instead of raising its periapsis ASAP. The reason is because I was busy activating the accelerometers on my Munar Rover (yep, still there, more than 8 months after converting a manned rover into it by stripping off the command seats- the probe core was already included for SAS force). You see, KSP-Interstellar has converted all seismic sensors- including ones built before the latest update- into impactor experiment sensors instead (they produce more science- but require a separate vessel to crash into the planet/moon's surface) So, after collecting that data, and having read that you needed to perform multiple impact experiments (or land multiple impact sensors) in different places to get the full science value from this type of experiment, I decided to place the service module back into a suborbital trajectory, strip off the thermometer as a seismic "bullet" for the Mun's surface, and then re-circularize the orbit without the thermometer (now a high-speed impact probe). This time I also managed to take a screenshot of setting up the rover for the recording... The thermometer makes a valid impact probe (and it need not be said is something you can realistically imagine being easy to move from ship to ship like I did- especially if this were planned for ahead of time), and here are the images of its collision: And the data is show below: (Note that the thermometer was names 'Lury Kerman Debris' as Lury Kerman was the Kerbal to strip it off the service module- the Kerbal himself is safely in the Odin Command Module...) From a scientific standpoint, I'm perfectly satisfied with the thermometer acting as a valid impact probe. It collided into the surface of the Mun at 601.5 m/s (in the Kerbal universe, that's almost Mach 1.8), and the rover- which was located about 1/4 the way around the Mun from the impact point- had two parallel seismic sensors both pre-alerted to and recording the event. I think it's quite reasonable and not at all exploitative that a high-quality pair of space-age seismic sensors (approximately early 1990's to 2000's level of technology when the rover was built- though my current tech level is about analogous to maybe 15-20 years in the future) should be able to measure and obtain useful data from such an impact- especially considering baseline (stock) seismic data had already been taken from exactly the same location earlier. NEXT UP: The Light Munar Explorer sets a return-trajectory to Kerbin, making a gravity-assist around Minmus for extra Science points! (I don't believe I've yet hit the science cap for returning vessels from Minmus orbit- having only done it maybe once or twice before in this save...) Regards, Northstar

So, apparently GOG.com has this old classic (and its expansion), patched to work with modern computers, for just $5.99 I played it back in the day when one of the local libraries had a copy is circulation (yes, the libraries near where I grew up had computer games- though only a handful of titles) I figured this might be the place to ask- seeing as KSP is also a space game- if I bough this game, would anyone be interested in doing so as well, and playing up a multiplayer game or two with me? (Hamachi allows emulation of the mulitplayer online system, now discontinued) I'm aware that the source code was made public for Freespace 2, and there's an open-source version based on that; but AFAIK in Freespace 2 they made the physics less realistic, which is a big peeve for me... Anyways, anyone interested?

Lol, indeed. Spent the day with my computer. I'm just glad it's over.

Navigating a lander that transports Kerbals by ladders is probably the most tedious thing I've ever done. And I'm not sure the slight mass-savings were worth all the extra hassle of constantly having to make sure the Kerbals didn't fall off, and the inability to perform time-warp without having the Kerbals let go of the lander first... Next time, I'm just going with Extrernal Command Chairs for super-light landers, or even a Thor Lander... (my time is worth more than the fuel savings, I think) Anyways, I've got a few more images- I decided to move the service module to a slightly higher orbit to increase the phasing rate for rendezvous: I also thought I should point out that I made an adjustment burn on the Minmus Spacedock, which is now currently on a collision-course with Minmus (I'll raise the periapsis just slightly after I enter the SOI) Regards, Northstar

I just realized I've been calling the mission and naming some of the craft the Light "Lunar" Explorer Mission (after Earth's moon, Luna) instead of the Light "Munar" Explorer Mission- apologies about that. Anyways, my brave Kerbals landed on Muna's south pole: Performed some scientific experiments: And then ascended back into orbit: And this is interesting- I don't know if any of you caught it in my landing, science, or scent screenshots; but there was an eerily-glowing pit behind the lander's landing site... See if you can find it. I'm afraid I didn't get any good pictures of it from straight above, but it appears I landed right next to one of the sort-of anomalies (or one not previously discovered?), one of the "tunnels" at the poles that goes several km straight down through the Mun! I got a good view down it briefly as I was ascending back to orbit, but I didn't manage to take a screenshot- I was having a bit of trouble keeping the Kerbals on the ladder at that point (they kept having this strange tendency to fall at a different rate than the lander when its engines were shut off, and thus fall off the ladders- despite being in a free-fall situation where both should have moved together at exactly the same rate... The lander also showed this weird tendency to dance around when landed on the surface at first...) Now comes the fun part: rendezvous with the service module, and transfer over of the scientific data. I was *hoping* to make a suborbital hop to an additional biome, but after seeing how much trouble I was having keeping the Kerbals just from falling off the lander, I decided against it. Besides, based on my fuel back in orbit, I wouldn't have had enough Delta-V to make it back to the service module after that... Regards, Northstar EDIT: An inspection of the Wiki "Easter Eggs" list mentions no tunnels like the one I saw on the Mun- but it does list similar tunnels (and "anomalous forces"- could that be what I was experiencing with the lander?) on Moho. Perhaps the terrain generation algorithm generated similar tunnels on the Mun, and I'm just one of the first players to find them- or at least nobody's bothered to post it to the Wiki yet?

The Light Lunar Explorer Mission (remember that from before?) has been off to a roaring good start! I present, the images: Regards, Northstar

KSP-Interstellar's greatest, most interesting feature IMHO is the In-Situ Resource Utilization system. There's great value to being able to produce your fuel off-planet more sustainably than Kethane allows... But beyond that, when it comes to flying, its realistically-implemented nuclear reactors (NearFuture reactors produce far less power per ton than their real-life counterparts) open up the possibility of building larger cargo planes/helicopters on Duna- in my opinion the only type of aircraft *REALLY* worth building besides science vessels... In fact, this thread has inspired me- once this thread dies down some and I get in all my entries, and probably once 0.24 is released and everybody's used to it, I'm thinking about creating a "Flying Duna Mk3" challenge, one rewarding cargo capacity, low-maintenance (a point penalty for using nuclear reactors instead of solar power, and no use of reactors beyond fission allowed- fusion isn't sustainable on Duna, and antimatter isn't sustainable without massive infrastructure), and low part-count, rather than Kerbal capacity. As for altitude- well it's of obvious use for spaceplanes... Also, the higher a plane's altitude ceiling, the faster you can fly at medium altitudes relative to that ceiling (you can maintain a lower Angle of Attack). OR, the higher the theoretical cargo capacity at a lower altitude. So I've found this challenge useful for working out some design principles to eventually use in my Duna heavy lifter designs... (once again, only really possible without massive part-spam using KSP-I) Regards, Northstar P.S. I made an adjustment burn on the Minmus Spacedock- which will be refueling the Raven Mk2 before it departs for Duna. The spacedock is now 3 game-days out from Minmus. I'll probably time-warp through a lot of it, rather than running additional simultaneous missions as I usually do though- so expect updates on that relatively soon.

@Geschosskopf I know it's been a while since anybody posted anything in this thread, so I wanted to suggest an idea to spice it up a little: How about if you create an entry of your own, this time utilizing KSP-Interstellar? I'd love to see what you come up with using that mod, even though I know you've been reluctant to use it... Just stick to the fission reactors, and I'm sure you won't have a shock-and-awe reaction to the futuristic technologies of fusion or antimatter... Regards, Northstar P.S. My Duna Flotilla, and with it my four vessels for this challenge (3 planes of various sizes, and a helicopter), are still on their way. I just haven't been very active in this game for a while, and I've been spending most of my time in-game setting up a mountaintop launch site in practice for setting up similar such sites at low altitude on Duna (I'd like to be able to utilize helicopters on Duna- which there is simply no way to get to work from a high-altitude base, as the air is too thin).

Not exactly what I was looking for.. I'm not a modder myself, and in no position to implement many of these reactions. I was more hoping to lobby existing mod-makers, like Fractal_UK (the creator of KSP-Interstellar) to include more of these reactions; or perhaps eventually bring them to the attention of Squad for their planned resource system... (It'll happen- SOMEDAY!) Regards, Northstar P.S. KSP-Interstellar already makes use of the Open Resource System. It's actually the given example for the crustal resources type in the mod description...

@Fractal_UK Oh, Fractal, one more thing about that- what about the idea of utilizing a GUI for In-Situ Resource Utilization. Something like a chart showing the different resources, and arrows between them labelled with the different reactions and what they produce (i.e. Haber-Bosch from LiquidFuel to Ammonia with an input arrow from "atmosphere", Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction from LiquidFuel to LiquidWater, etc...) I bet that would be a lot more intuitive way to represent the frankly astounding number of reactions possible, without overwhelming players. Regards, Northstar

I just wanted to remind anyone reading this thread about my In-Situ Resource Utilization thread... Hopefully Fractal will implement more of those reactions in the future... Like I said multiple times, all the necessary resources are there- it's just a matter of adding the needed reactions... http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68797-In-Situ-Resource-Utilization-Useful-Reactions

I wouldn't be so sure about assisted-launch being useless. I've observed pretty significant (maybe 300-400) Delta-V savings just from launching at 4200m with a high TWR rocket (ideal TWR is greater than 2 at high altitude launch). And as I pointed out, the air is already less than 40% as thick at 4200m (in KSP, drag is directly proportional to air density as far as I can tell). Plus, due to the Oberth effect, you'll be wasting a lot less fuel if the mass-driver gives you the first part (maybe 1000-1200 m/s) of your velocity: it will cut a lot more off the Delta-V than the amount of velocity it gives you (think about it- it takes 4500 Delta-V to get to orbit, but orbital velocity is only 2300 m/s. A lot of Delta-V is wasted...) If you run FAR, the drag will be even less if the rocket is designed properly (long and streamlined). Ahh- well all I had to go off is the pictures on the OP when I posted. How did you get the game to not simulate drag then? I see- so the mass driver itself isn't the limiting factor on acceleration. In that case, no need to burn the rocket while still on the mass-driver... If you build up a mountain-side, it will be MORE realistic. Remember that bridges don't go nearly as high up as your mass driver, and as such have a lot less mass in steel to support, as well as fewer oscillations due to wind to deal with... I used to spend a lot of time working with the West Point Bridge Designer software back in high school. The mass of your bridge matters a LOT to its capacity- and a mass driver that goes 14 km up isn't going to be able to support the mass of an 100t rocket- and probably not even its own weight... KerbTown will get fixed eventually. Work with me to get a mass driver up the side of the mountains to the west of KSC, and then when Kerbtown spawnpoint functionality is restored, you'll be able to launch rockets from there without the need for Extraplanetary Launchpads. Besides, Extraplanetary Launchpads isn't so bad. It's really just the same concept as Kerbtown's alternative spawn points- which you were already prepared to rely on- except that you somehow have to get the RocketParts to build a rocket to the launchpad, as well as the launchpad itself to the site... (or in the case of a launchpad on Kerbin's surface, edit them in using TAC Fuel Balancer after getting the launchpad and a RocketParts container there in the first place...) And note that I said 'work with me' again- I'm eager to work with you on a mountainside mass drive, if you can show me how to do it with Kerbtown... Regards, Northstar

Take a look at these links for a little background-reading. I think you might understand a little better then what the real-life proposals look like, and why I'm suggesting that for an open-rail, above-ground design (the only type really feasible in KSP) you start at the base of a mountain and match the slope (at more or less constant inclination after the initial curve), instead of starting at sea-level and curving upwards at an unrealistic and deadly pace... http://www.g2mil.com/high.htm http://www.g2mil.com/skyramp.htm http://www.g2mil.com/spaceport.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver Regards, Northstar

If you're going to give it all the velocity to exit the atmosphere just from the launch rail, then yes, the top will need to be at quite a high altitude. However if you simply use it as an assisted-launch technology, and the rocket still has to burn its engines at some point, then there's no need to make the mouth nearly so high up... In an enclosed, tunnel-style launch rail with evacuated air, then yes- you would expect no drag. However this thing is clearly open to the air- so I would think drags should be an issue. You're saying that in-game it has no drag as it's on rails though? Well in that case, at least you lose a lot less velocity to drag after release (assuming you release the rocket at a higher altitude due to a higher foundation height). If you can dial the mass driver up enough without the game bugging out, then sure, there's no need to fire engines. (n real-life, there's an issue of being able to create powerful enough electromagnets without frying all the rocket's on-board systems, as no magnetic shielding is perfect...) You could still get better ISP for rocket burns after release if a higher foundation meant a higher release height though... I guess a big point I'm getting at: a 14 km mouth with a sea-level foundation is unrealistic and overly-complex. In real life, any great curvature upwards after the rocket has reached a little over Mach (340 m/s in the Kerbal-universe) would be sure to kill the crew of any manned craft due to G-forces... What's more, no modern construction technology would allow a free-standing launch rail that extends that far above the ground and can still support the weight of a sizable rocket without frankly ridiculous amounts of structural reinforcement and size (this is one of the reasons the more serious proposals in real-life suggest staring the launch tunnel deep underground, and placing the mouth in a mountain peak). So, I feel that building a mass drive with a higher foundation and a lower mouth would be both more realistic. A higher foundation would also allow you to have a higher mouth without unrealistic degrees of curvature... Though, if you want a realistic drive that gives you a significantly greater exit velocity, start the ramp near sea-level and curve it up to a *constant slope* that matches a mountain slope *near the beginning* of the track, where the velocity is still low. This is what the larger open-rail drive plans suggest doing in real-life. You should totally get on it- or better yet, Minmus! The gravity is even lower there, so you wouldn't need as large a mass drive; and the planetary curvature is much greater due to the smaller radius, so you wouldn't need to curve the actual drive nearly as much to avoid obstacles like mesas/mountains/plateaus near the horizon! I know it doesn't take much Delta-V to escape Minmus, but every little bit helps... Plus, on Minmus, you could EASILY set up a Mass Drive that would shoot vessels out at Kerbin escape-velocities (from that high orbit), perhaps even being used to give vessels a significant portion of their Delta-V to get to interplanetary targets like Duna or Eve... Anyways, at least start the mass drive at the base of a mountain and curve up the slope, for realism's sake, if nothing else... In fact, that's an even better idea than just starting it on a mountain-top, and would make the base of the drive much easier to get to... Also, like I said, I'd be more than willing to help with any of these plans- I just don't know how. Regards, Northstar

A successful test-launch confirmed that the mountaintop launch facility is now fully operational! (although the rockets do have the tendency to "burn" the launchpad during liftoff) Now if I just had something to launch from it... The test-launch was used to carry a small amount of additional ArgonGas into orbit, by the way. I figure I'll fish it and the leftover LFO fuel out at some point, and probably use it to fuel a small (initially empty) ArgonGas probe I'll stick on a larger manned mission as a secondary cargo. Regards, Northstar

The mountaintop launch facility is finished! Or at least, for the moment: For those of you wondering how I got the pieces in place- I built them on the Launchpad, and then moved them using helicopter rotors with probe cores on top of a stack-decoupler (I then let the helicopter top fly away into the distance until it crashed in one case, and landed and recovered it in the other). After landing, I attached via KAS winch. If only Kerbtown was in a greater state of completion/optimization, and was fully functional in 0.23. I would have just started out by building a think level concrete pad on the mountaintop, to provide a flat surface to land everything on, and probably would have also given it some KSC runway/launchpad-style lights and a heavily-reinforced Kerbtown steel truss structure on top of the concrete base at least a couple hundred meters up (to increase the launch altitudes). I probably would have also tried to implement an inclined magnetic launch rail, if I could then figure out how to build one of those in Kerbtown... Regards, Northstar

@Skycooler Is there any chance I could persuade you to consider changing your design strategy a bit? You're building the mass drive in the wrong place. What you REALLY should be doing is building a high-altitude launch ramp. If you build it in the mountains west of the KSC (for simplicity and proximity), you can achieve base altitudes of over 4600 meters. Throw down a flat concrete pad on top of one of the peaks with Kerbtown, to act as a level foundation, and you could easily build your mass driver there. For *bonus points*, build the platform out of steel instead (with a concrete base) and a couple hundred meters tall for a bit greater benefits in terms of high-altitude launch (listed below). Vessels could be spawned there with Extraplanetary Launchpads until the Kerbtown spawnpoints are fixed. Here's an example of a launchpad I recently set up at 4630 meters on the flattest spot I could find of the southernmost peak in the mountain range west of KSC, as the start of a larger manually-constructed launch facility: If you build a high-altitude launch ramp, you will gain several advantages: (1) You can build a more level mass drive since the ideal trajectory is less vertical at that altitude- ideally just a constant slope to avoid having to mess with curvature at all in its construction/design. Reducing curvature also reduces the normal-force on the craft as it curves up. (2) Your craft will experience less drag. At 4600 meters, the atmosphere is less than 40% as dense as at sea-level. This will help with your vessels not tearing themselves apart from atmospheric drag during the acceleration, allow them to accelerate more quickly on the ramp, and not lose as much of their hard-earned velocity immediately upon leaving the mass drive if they greatly exceed terminal-velocity. (3) If you build a shorter, constant-slope launch ramp, you may be able to fire rocket engines while still on the ramp; to achieve greater velocity by the end of the ramp. At higher altitude, your rocket engines will get better ISP doing this (and eventually when Squad changes atmosphere curves to be variable-thrust as promised, and like in real life- better thrust instead of ISP). (4) The obvious benefit of having less altitude to climb before you're out of the atmosphere. It takes a bit less Delta-V to get to orbit just on that account. I'd also love to see a mass-drive on the Mun, if you ever get around to it- but due to the much lower gravity there and lack of an atmosphere, that's obviously a much lower priority... Regards, Northstar P.S. I'd help you design/build a high-altitude version- but I have no idea how to design or build stuff in Kerbtown. More importantly, I have no idea how you actually are accelerating the vessel, from a coding standpoint. If you think it's all simple enough to learn though, and want to help me figure it out, just send me a PM- I'd be more than happy to work with you.

While I'm somewhat busy with real-life obligations, and work on setting up my launch facility, and my first high-altitude launch system in-game; I just thought I'd share a couple interesting articles that highlight my reasons for choosing a high-altitude launch site (my current launch site is at just under 15,200 feet) and exactly the kind of launch-assistance technologies I dream of someday being able to integrate into my space program: http://www.g2mil.com/high.htm http://www.g2mil.com/skyramp.htm http://www.g2mil.com/spaceport.htm Pay particular attention to the article on "Sky Ramp" technology. If Kerbtown ( http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/40374-WIP-KerbTown-v0-13-Beta-Place-static-buildings-cities-launch-sites-more!?highlight=kerb+town ) wasn't currently only partially-functional for 0.23 (the mod author seems to have abandoned it- but another player took up the job of updating it to mostly work for 0.23), I would probably be making use of a mountaintop spawn point combined with launch-rail technology at this launch facility... Somebody is already working on a Mass Driver. Too bad it's at sea-level though: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/45229-WIP-Mass-Driver?highlight=mass+drive For those curious what a "Mass Driver" or "Sky Ramp" is, take a look at the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver Regards, Northstar

For those of you curious, or who came across this separately, I've been trying to get the attention of FractalUK- the creator of the KSP-Interstellar mod- to have him include more of the reactions mentioned here on this thread in KSP-Interstellar's ISRU system... Currently, the Sabatier Reaction and Water Electroylysis are included; as well as a water-based version of the Anthraquinone Process, and an inaccurate version of the Hydrogen Peroxide method for Hydrazine synthesis (the stoichiometric ratios are off, and it doesn't seem to produce much, if any, water); but the mod is missing a number of key reactions needed to complement the existing reactions. Particularly these include the Reverse Water Gas Shift Reaction (to produce more oxygen via water electrolysis for burning the Sabatier's methane with), the Haber-Bosch Process (to produce Ammonia from atmospheric Nitrogen, for Hydrazine synthesis- currently Ammonia is hard to come by- I think you can only get it on Eve), and the gas-based version of the Anthraquinone Process (this version is, as far as I can tell, the more common one in real-life, and more useful in KSP- as it's much easier to come by Hydrogen and Oxygen separately than it is water- which the mod also provides no way to produce directly from its constituent gasses, such as via fuel-cell.) If you're interested to see the discussion, or would like to chime in and say something yourself, here is the link to the page on the (very long) KSP-Interstellar thread where I most recently posed on the topic (page 653) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43839-0-23-KSP-Interstellar-%28Thermal-Helper-Solar-Sail-Impactors-Fusion%29-Version-0-10-3/page653 Regards, Northstar P.S. Some of you might catch that I make reference to earlier posts I made on the same topic trying to get FractalUK's attention. For those of you desiring context, the links for those earlier posts (two pairs of posts, posted on pages 640 and 647) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43839-0-23-KSP-Interstellar-%28Thermal-Helper-Solar-Sail-Impactors-Fusion%29-Version-0-10-3?p=954910#post954910 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43839-0-23-KSP-Interstellar-%28Thermal-Helper-Solar-Sail-Impactors-Fusion%29-Version-0-10-3?p=956244#post956244